Fastest
Eureka on the web
When you want the answer in the next five minutes.
The agent works the prompt against patents and technical literature, citing every source.
Run your analysis now →https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/bcd-to-binary-code-conversion-circuit-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-27 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Semiconductors & MicroelectronicsBCD to Binary Code Conversion Circuit Patents
699 patent families on BCD-to-binary conversion circuits: filer concentration, IPC split, and filing activity through 2026.
1,000
Published Records
699
Simple Patent Families
4%
Families Naming the Largest Filer
2%
In Force at Cut-off
1,000 published records collapse into 699 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINE CORPORATION is named on 26 of the 699 patent families in scope. One patent family can name several filers, so these figures are not slices of a divided whole and do not add up. In force = 23 of 1,000 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
- 699 simple patent families sit behind 1,000 published records returned by this search, with International Business Machine Corporation named on 26 of the families (3.7%), the highest single-row share.
- 49 of the 86 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, while the filer named on the most families holds 26.
- H03M (coding & code conversion) and G06F (digital data processing) cover 33.2% and 26.9% of the 699 families respectively, the two largest IPC subclasses in scope.
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this dataset covers
This landscape is built from a search for binary coded decimal (BCD) to binary conversion circuits, matching records that combine BCD or binary-code terms with conversion-circuit language in the title, abstract or claims. The search carries no date limit, so the 699 simple patent families and 1,000 published records returned span whatever years the matching documents happen to fall in. A single invention can produce several published records if it was filed in more than one office, which is why the record count runs higher than the family count.
Coverage here is defined entirely by the search string, not by a technology category someone else assigned. Some of the smaller IPC subclasses the chart surfaces reflect that: a broad term like 'binary' or 'conversion circuit' can pull in records from unrelated fields, and this dataset cannot distinguish that noise from a genuine minor branch. The two largest subclasses, by contrast, line up closely with what the search string targets.
Families and records in scope
Counted over all 1,000 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 70 records from 2007 onward, so the two charts are not the same set of documents. Ordered by volume only, not by importance or claim strength. Counted in simple (DOCDB) patent families, so one invention filed in several countries counts once. Names come from Patsnap's standardised assignee field as recorded on each document; subsidiaries and group companies are not merged. The icon before each name is read from the name itself (words such as University, Institute or Ltd); the data carries no organisation-type field, so treat it as a reading aid rather than a classification. 3 rows in this table share the name STATES (THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA THE AS REPRESENTED BY THE SEC OF THE ARMY, THE UNITED STATES AS REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY). They are left as separate rows, so the largest-filer figure above is per legal entity, not per group. Rows that look related still cannot be added together: one family can name several of them. Filings held by named individuals rather than organisations are removed where they can be identified (14 here); that identification is not exhaustive, so an individually held filing can still appear below. Either way those filings stay inside the totals above. This table shows the top 30 of the 86 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 86 is not the complete set of filers. A single family can name more than one filer, so these counts overlap and do not add up to the total.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from one Patsnap search for BCD to Binary Code Conversion Circuit Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
10,000 free credits to start
The data
Filing activity and classification mix
Two views of the same 699 families: how filings have moved over time by earliest filing year, and how the families split across IPC subclasses.
Filing trend by earliest filing year (70 of 1,000 published records)
Published records counted by earliest filing year ran from 4 in 2007 to a peak of 8, reached in 2010, 2012 and 2021. Records from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications publish, so that stretch of the chart understates eventual totals and should not be read as a decline.
Counted in published records by earliest filing year, not de-duplicated into families. A filing is counted in the year it was filed, but it only becomes visible after it publishes: roughly 18 months for most routes, and up to 30 months where a PCT application enters national phase. 2022 onwards are therefore still filling in and are shaded; no growth figure on this page uses them. Because this series counts documents rather than inventions, a rise can mean more inventions or the same inventions filed in more countries; this dataset cannot separate the two. This chart covers 2007-2026 (70 records); the 1,000 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
IPC subclass composition
H03M (coding & code conversion) accounts for 232 of the 699 families (33.2%) and G06F (electric digital data processing) for 188 (26.9%). Because a family can carry more than one IPC class, these and the other subclasses shown on the chart add up to more than the family total.
Shares are the percentage of the 699 patent families in scope. One patent family can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from one Patsnap search for BCD to Binary Code Conversion Circuit Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.
Go deeper on BCD to Binary Code Conversion Circuit Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about bcd to binary code conversion circuit patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRecord in focus
A record from the result set
First record returned, database default order
US4225854A, High density analog-to-binary coded decimal converter
MOTOROLA, INC.
The abstract describes combining integrated injection logic (I2L) with linear circuitry to build a dense analog-to-BCD converter. Its core is a linear-I2L array of high-density variable current sinks, proportional to one another, used with I2L constant current sources, current sensing and I2L logic gating.Filed by Motorola, Inc., published 1980-09-30. This is simply the first record the search returns under the database's default ordering, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set, and nothing about its place in the field can be inferred from that order.
Selected as the first record the search returns under the database default order, then shown in full. It is not ranked by citations, claim breadth or commercial importance, and it is not a judgement about which filing in this space matters most.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. The first record the search returned, shown in full. Derived from one Patsnap search for BCD to Binary Code Conversion Circuit Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself
Put your own technology through the same analysis
Where to run it
For builders
MCP server & REST API
When it has to run inside your own pipeline.
Patent search, landscape analysis and assignee resolution as MCP tools. Drop them into any agent framework, or call REST directly.
Browse MCP servers →Insights
What the figures show
Three readings of the dataset, each tied to a single figure from the search results.
Filer concentration
26 of 699 families
largest single-row share
One filer named on 3.7% of families
International Business Machine Corporation is named on 26 of the 699 simple patent families in scope, a 3.7% share. This is the highest count of any single row in the listed filers; it says nothing about the scope or value of the claims in those 26 families.
Based on 86 listed filers, counted in simple patent families.
Long tail
49 of 86 filers
hold 2 or fewer families
Most listed filers hold very few families
49 of the 86 listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each, against a largest row of 26. Filer rows are not mutually exclusive, one family can name more than one filer, so these counts cannot be summed into a combined share.
Filer list is organisations; individual-inventor filings are excluded from this list where they can be identified but remain in the 699-family total.
Technology split
33.2% / 26.9%
H03M / G06F share of families
Two subclasses cover the bulk of the IPC mix among those named
H03M (coding & code conversion) appears on 232 of 699 families (33.2%) and G06F (electric digital data processing) on 188 (26.9%). Because records can carry multiple IPC classes, these two figures overlap to an unknown extent and do not sum to a combined coverage figure.
Counted in simple patent families; the chart shows the full IPC spread across 100 subclasses in all.
Legal status
23 of 1,000
records granted and in force
2% of records are granted and in force at retrieval
23 of the 1,000 published records (2%) were granted and still in force as of the 2026-10-27 retrieval date. The remaining records fall into other status categories that are not broken out in this dataset, so no further split can be reported.
Legal status is a snapshot at retrieval date, not a measure of claim quality or breadth.
Eureka AI Agent
Looking for what nobody has claimed yet?
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to bcd to binary code conversion circuit patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Derived observations on the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for BCD to Binary Code Conversion Circuit Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next steps
Working with this dataset
Where a closer read inside Patsnap Eureka can take this analysis further.
Reading claim scope directly
Family and record counts cannot establish what any granted claim actually covers. Pulling the full claim set for a specific family is the only way to assess overlap with a design under review.
Open EurekaTracking the filer list beyond the top rows
The 86 listed filers include a long tail of entries holding 2 or fewer families each. Monitoring new filings from specific names in that tail can surface activity before it shows up in aggregate counts.
Open EurekaWatching the incomplete filing years
Records filed from 2022 onward are still publishing and will revise the recent end of the filing trend upward. Re-checking that window periodically gives a more complete picture than reading it once.
Open EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Suggested next steps. No new data: every figure named here is one of those above. Derived from one Patsnap search for BCD to Binary Code Conversion Circuit Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Questions practitioners ask about this field
This search returned 699 simple patent families, which de-duplicate the same invention across countries, and 1,000 published records, which count every publication separately. The gap between the two numbers reflects inventions filed in more than one office. There is no date limit on the search, so these totals cover whatever years the matching documents happen to fall in, not a fixed recent window.
International Business Machine Corporation is named on 26 of the 699 simple patent families in scope, a 3.7% share, the highest count of any single row in the listed filers. A count like this says nothing about the breadth or enforceability of those claims, only how many families the name appears on. Filer names in this dataset are not rolled up to corporate group, so a parent and any subsidiaries would appear as separate rows rather than combined.
49 of the 86 listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each, against a largest row of 26, which points to a long tail of entities with limited filing volume alongside a smaller number of more active names. These filer counts cannot be added together into a combined share because one family can name more than one filer, so the rows overlap by an unknown amount. The filer list also only includes organisations; filings held by named individuals sit inside the 699-family total but not in this ranking.
The two largest IPC subclasses among the families in scope are H03M, coding and code conversion, covering 232 of 699 families (33.2%), and G06F, electric digital data processing, covering 188 (26.9%). Because a single family can carry more than one IPC classification, these shares overlap and do not add to a combined total. The dataset spans 100 subclasses in all, with the remainder each covering a much smaller share of the families.
The filing trend here is counted in published records by earliest filing year and ran from 4 records in 2007 to a peak of 8, reached in 2010, 2012 and 2021. Records from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications publish, on datasets like this, filings from several years back typically have not yet reached their eventual count, so that recent stretch should not be read as a drop in activity. No growth rate is reported here because the dataset does not support computing one reliably.
23 of the 1,000 published records in this dataset, or 2%, were granted and still in force as of the 2026-10-27 retrieval date. The rest fall into other categories, pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or simply not determinable from available data, and this dataset does not break that remainder down further. In-force status is a snapshot that changes continuously and is not an indicator of claim quality or commercial value.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for BCD to Binary Code Conversion Circuit Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research BCD to Binary Code Conversion Circuit Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole bcd to binary code conversion circuit patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
How this page was built, and what the numbers do and do not mean
Search. Every figure on this page comes from one Patsnap search, run once and not edited afterwards. This is the exact search string:
TAC:(("binary coded decimal" OR BCD) AND ("binary code" OR binary) AND ("conversion circuit" OR converter))Reading the field codes: TAC searches the title, abstract and claims of each record, not the full description. The search string sets no date limit, so the scope is every matching record in the database regardless of when it was filed. It is not restricted to recent years. How this string was built matters for how far the counts can be pushed. It was generated in batch from a topic list rather than hand-crafted for this page, and the result set is not manually screened. A keyword search over title, abstract and claims both over-captures (unrelated filings that happen to use the same words) and under-captures (the same invention written in different words). This page cannot measure either effect, so read every figure here as what this particular string returned, not as what exists in the field. No subclass carries much of this set: the most common one is on 33.2% of the patent families and the set spans 100 subclasses in all. That can mean the technology genuinely sits across several areas, or that the search string is also matching adjacent work that happens to use the same words. This page cannot separate the two, and the result set is not screened by hand.
What is being counted. Two different units appear on this page and they are not interchangeable. The filer list and the technology split are counted in simple (DOCDB) patent families: one invention counts once however many countries it was filed in. The total, the jurisdiction split and the filing-year chart are counted in published records: the same invention counts once per publication. For this search that is 1,000 records and 699 families. Record counts reward filing in many jurisdictions; family counts do not. Shares are only ever taken against a denominator in the same unit, and each one names it.
Who the filers are. Names come from Patsnap's standardised assignee field, as recorded on the documents themselves. They are not rolled up to corporate group: a parent and its subsidiaries appear as separate entries, and a portfolio acquired from another company stays under the name on the document unless the assignment is reflected there. This list is meant to carry organisations, not people. Filings held by a named individual are identified by matching the assignee against the inventors on the same search, and, for names written in Chinese, Japanese or Korean characters, by the name carrying no organisational suffix; those are removed from the list (14 of them here). Neither test is exhaustive: the inventor list it matches against is itself capped, and a personal name written in Latin script with no organisational wording in it cannot be told apart from a short company name by rule. So an individually held filing can still appear in the list. Those filings stay inside every total and share on this page either way, so the listed entries can add up to less than the total. A record shown in full further down still names its assignee exactly as the patent office records it, including where that is a person: that name is how the record is identified and checked. What is left out of the ranking is people as ranked entries, not people as cited sources. The table shows the top 30 of the 86 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 86 is not every filer. One patent family can name several filers and each is counted separately, so these rows are not slices of a divided whole: adding them together over-counts, and this page deliberately publishes no combined "top five" share for that reason. See every filer, individuals included
Dates. The year chart counts by earliest filing year, not publication year. A filing only becomes visible once it publishes: roughly 18 months for most routes, and up to 30 months where a PCT application enters national phase. Measured across these pages, the year four back from today still holds only about 89% of its eventual count. 2022 onwards are therefore shaded on the chart as still filling in. The data behind this page was retrieved on 2026-10-27.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (23 of 1,000). Everything else is pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and those states are not broken out here because the underlying codes do not separate them cleanly. Legal status changes continuously and is reported per document, not per family. Get the status breakdown in Eureka
Classification. The technology split uses IPC subclasses (four characters, for example H01M). A single record usually carries several, so the shares add up to more than 100% and a record can appear in more than one bar. Subclass is a coarse grouping; it describes the field a record was classified into, not what the claims cover. Break the classes down to subgroup level
Who wrote the words. The tables, charts, counts, shares and patent numbers on this page are produced directly from the search result by a program; none of them are written or estimated by a language model. The surrounding prose, headings, FAQ answers and the answers in the question panel are drafted by a language model that is given those same figures and is not permitted to introduce others. Prose can still mis-describe a correct figure, so where the two disagree, the tables and charts are the record.
Disclaimer. This page is generated from Patsnap Eureka data drawn from a limited snapshot of global patent and scientific-literature records, and is provided for general information and reference only.
Patent data carries limitations that apply to every figure above. Recent filings are under-counted, because an application is not public until roughly 18 months after filing and database loading adds further delay. The search string defines and constrains everything shown: records that use different terminology, or that sit outside the fields searched, are absent and cannot be counted. Applicant names, classification codes, legal-status codes and citation records are taken as recorded and may contain errors, duplicates, omissions or stale entries. Ordering by volume is not a measure of quality, scope, enforceability or commercial value, and a larger portfolio is not a stronger one. As a result, the analysis may be incomplete or inaccurate and may not reflect the full technology landscape.
Nothing on this page constitutes an exhaustive prior-art, novelty, freedom-to-operate, validity or infringement search, nor does it constitute legal, financial, investment, or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. No attorney-client relationship is created by it. Any patent, commercial, or strategic decision should be verified independently against the primary records and reviewed with qualified patent, legal, and domain professionals. Patsnap makes no warranties, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, or fitness for any particular purpose of the information presented.
The question panel. The answers behind the suggested questions on this page were written when the page was generated, not in response to your click. The progress steps that play before an answer appears are an animation of how that analysis was done; nothing is being searched or computed at that moment. Typing your own question instead opens Patsnap Eureka, which does run it live.